Slashdot Mirror
Complete Nvidia GTX280 Scores Posted
Groo Wanderer writes "Since boredom is a dangerous thing on the weekends, I decided to alleviate mine by running 233 benchmarks on the new GT280. This includes 28 gaming related tests across up to nine resolutions, and 9800GTX numbers thrown in for good measure. Since there were no NDAs involved in getting you these numbers, we are not bound by the pesky NDA that lifts tomorrow. You can read all of the numbers here; enjoy."
All this tells us is that the previous generation of cards are still ahead of the cpu. When you see cards with similar framerates for lower resolutions and then they diverge at higher res, it tells you that it is the processor limiting the framerate at those resolutions. Sure, we can get a little more efficient and raise those lower resolution framerates (or, more realistically use better anti-aliasing, AF, etc to make it look better), but in general where the benefit comes with new cards these days is by allowing higher resolution gaming.
I don't understand the criticism. It looks like a better card across the board. What am I missing?
+++ATH0
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It sounded like it described one of the first GHz CPUs. You know there are ways to increase performance using "primitive" technology by simply making it big, hot, extra noisy cooling and so on. Increasing performance per watt is much harder, and given that the benchmarks look good I'm guessing this will be as hot and heavy like a SLI solution without actually being a SLI solution. We will see...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
To add insult to injury, the TDPs of the 260 and 280 are 182W and 236W respectively. This means big copper heatsinks, possibly heatpipes, and high-end fans.
The GT200 is about six months late, blew out their die size estimates and missed clock targets by a lot. ATI didn't. This means that buying a GT260 board will cost about 50 per cent more than an R770 for equivalent performance. The GT280 will be about 25 per cent faster but cost more than twice as much. A month or so after the 770 comes the 700, basically two 770s on a slab. This will crush the GT280 in just about every conceivable benchmark and likely cost less. 236W TDP! I have a 30" display, so good performance at very high resolutions is important to me, but.. I think I'll pass if the GPU alone is going to draw more power than my entire system.
Currently the released nVidia drivers don't support the 2xx series and the beta drivers that do support the 2xx series don't have .inf file entries for anything but the 2xx series. Until unified drivers are released that support and install on the entire nVidia product line it will be problematic to produce comparisons with the same drivers.
I keep wondering why people buy 30" computer monitors... is there something wrong with a 1080p 46" TV set? they sell DVD to hdmi cables, and many sets have a PC input.
.5 ms the Samsung has 6ms the Westinghouse has 6.5ms
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001098 $1,299 = 30"
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889234003 $1,199 = 47"
that particular set has a PC connection, 2 dvi ports and 1 hdmi, and here's the kicker, the difference in response time?
i've heard before that Westinghouse displays are basically big PC monitors, with a TV tuner attached.
now i know, a HDTV generally only supports 1080p, 1080i, 720p, and 480i on the HD inputs, and since this one has PC inputs on the pc input it accepts 1920 x 1080, 640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768 on the PC input... finding a RGB PC cable is easy, i used to specifically pick out PC monitors with replaceable cables, in case the cable got cut/kinked or the end pins broken.. so i already have cables from old monitors!
is it really worth it to support 2560x1600 resolution? especially since modern (single card setups) gaming cards can't even handle 1080p on modern game engines.. and even with multi card support, the CPU winds up being a limiting factor... OCing to 4 ghz with some extreme cooling solution, like the xp-120 or water cooling... is probably the only way to really push frame rates, even with a SLI/crossfire solution.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
ATI/AMD's new cards look more interesting. Performance is there, but also power saving and video processing. In both those areas they beat nVidia hands down.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Second, the TV set has a crappy resolution for its size; 1920×1080? If I wanted that resolution I'd get a 24" monitor (or two) which is at least going to have a sensible DPI for, well, a monitor. here's the kicker, the difference in response time?
And what makes you think games were my primary motivation for it? It's a computer, I do work on it, and that resolution gives me space to run a browser side by side with editors, file browsers, half a dozen terminals, TV guides and media players. With the addition of one of my old 20"'s, it's like having 3 monitors.
Have you ever tried sitting on a desk in front of a 46" Monitor? I wouldnt be able to work (or game) on anything larger than 28". The sides of the monitor are almost outside of my peripheral vision. A monitor is not really workable if you have to move your head side to side to see the whole thing (this of course wouldn't matter if you werent sitting at a desk, but I would assume most PC users do).
Also at 2560x1600 resolution, CPU would not even factor in modern PC games. At that resolution, graphics cards would max out first due to memory and bandwidth limitations (benchmarks for games like Crysis and SupCom show this happening).
Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
Especially when it comes to ATI, I wouldn't count the chicks before they actually hatch. They have a knack, really a talent, a _gift_, for screwing up half the time.
I also wouldn't take any theoretical numbers as gospel. For either of the two. They both love to talk about theoretical gigatexels per second and GB/s of memory bandwidth as if the pipelines will always be fully used, every cycle, and memory was a continuous read that never had any RAS and CAS cycles in there.
But especially for ATI. They have that talent again for screwing up, but with good maths to back up the idea that it should have worked.
Starting from the original Radeon, which _should_ have had exactly the number of texturing units to fully utilize the memory bandwidth, and no more. (I.e., without wasting silicon on units which would just stall waiting for data anyway.) It should have run circles around NVidia's card of the same generation, right? In practice, it fell a bit short.
Or look at the more recent HD2xxx and HD3xxx cards. In theory the HD2600's unified architecture should have done miracles, but in practice it never quite worked that well. In theory, the HD38xx should have fixed that, except it barely made it competitive with an 8800 GT. In some games. At some resolutions. On a good day.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against either of the two. If anything, I used to dislike Nvidia a bit, which made me favour the ATI's. But, if I'm to learn anything from history, I'm a bit wary of making such bold pronouncements as "This will crush the GT280 in just about every conceivable benchmark". There are already plenty of cases where such prophecies were made, and just ended up with the prophecised Nvidia-killer quickly repackaged as "see, we don't want to compete at the top end. We'll just make it a mid-end card, ok? It's not that we can't compete at the top, mind you. We just suddenly find it obscene to charge $500 for a graphics card."
Or to put it otherwise, too often I've heard one or the other (but, again, ATI a bit more) crying "Wolf" and they barely managed to produce a dachshund. I'll wait until I actually see the big bad wolf this time, before joining in the chorus marveling at what a big, strong and fast wolf it is.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I use TV out with my XFX 8800 GS and a standard definition TV using the supplied S-video to Component/Composite adapter.
The only real snag I've had was using an adapter other than the one supplied by XFX. I have an S-video to Composite cable with integrated 3.5mm stereo to rca audio, but that didn't work even with Force TV Detection checked.
Once I tried the adapter that came in the box I had no problems setting up TV-out in XP, Vista, and Linux.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
So it worked for DVDs and others fullscreen? How about aspect ratios?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Some of us actually do work on monitors as well as play games. And the upper limit of what's a reasonable resolution for work is still very far away. I would gladly use a 2560x1600 setup, or a 3840x2400 for that matter, if it was affordable. I can definitely use all that space and perhaps even make myself more productive! (Just kidding, it would definitely raise my maximum productivity)
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
What's wrong with that? I use my bigger CRT TV to watch videos, DVDs, etc.? Why do I want to watch it on my 19" LCD monitor?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
We get a million comments saying how no one can afford this let's run some analysis.
GPU size, 65/55nm , pipelines 240 vs Mainstream 192, Mem-Bus 512 vs 448 Mainstream , so basically this means that the next generation mainstream card will be 80% as fast as this card.
Allright, so for $250-300 (in aproxx 6 months)you can get a GFX9800 x 1.2. Not too shabby, especially as this is the generation of PC games that kicks console asses.
Rock on nVidia, catch up time ATI... god I hope these things are user programmable.
you brought up an excellent point. i thought the same thing--so i did it. hooked up a beautiful 40" 1080p LCD TV to my computer (but keep in mind u need a DVI-HDMI converter).
But a big problem occured that I didn't account for. Eveyrthing is blurry and all text and images look like crap. Forget even being close to sharp. Everything looks like it was run through high JPEG compression.
As it turns out, LCD TV's can't do lower than 96 dpi. most LCD *monitors* do much lower, which we take for granted--it makes monitors look so sharp. So unfortunately, unless u barely use ur computer or u just don't care, that 30" or or any LCD monitor for that matter, is necessary.
VLC works great. In Linux you have to specify in VLC preferences which screen you want fullscreen to taget, 0 or 1. In Windows you have to drag the player over to that screen and then go fullscreen.
As far as aspect ratios are concerned, widescreen shows up letterboxed with a small ammount of the sides truncated, maybe 5% on each side. Not noticeable until I checked just now. 4:3 ratio videos show up perfectly as you would expect.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
AA isn't really meant for High Resolutions. It's meant to curb "Jaggies." The higher the resolution your set at, the more taxing AA is, and the Lower the visual benefit. Your allready packing more pixels, so your lines will have less jaggies in the first place.
/. think about that?
I allways find it interesting how people want to run crazy resolutions, w/ AA maxed.
Am I way off the mark here? What does
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
....Can Vista run Crysis?
No, but I've heard that Crysis is powerful enough to run Vista.
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
But a big problem occured that I didn't account for. Eveyrthing is blurry and all text and images look like crap. Forget even being close to sharp. Everything looks like it was run through high JPEG compression.
As it turns out, LCD TV's can't do lower than 96 dpi. most LCD *monitors* do much lower, which we take for granted--it makes monitors look so sharp. So unfortunately, unless u barely use ur computer or u just don't care, that 30" or or any LCD monitor for that matter, is necessary. which set, specifically were you looking at? some sets literally do run the image through some form of conversion/compression. some LCD tvs actually Are computer monitor guts, YMMV but there are sets that can do better than 96dpi.
you specifically mentioned a 'dvi to hdmi' cable, the set i'm looking at has a standard VGA jack in the back. with a dvi to hdmi link, you have to be very careful, to use a DVI-dual link cable that converts to HDMI, if you use a half link cable, there won't be enough bandwidth for 1080P resolution, if you bought your cable on the cheap, it could be the very cable you bought that causes the image to look like crap. also, DVI even in DVI dual mode uses GTF blanking, a process whereby frames are blanked by the system to achieve the resolution needed for display.
maybe you should have researched your purchase harder, there are sets that run all inputs through an image filter, to make SDTV look better, when it's detected, and even to make HD signals from lossy sources (like digital cable) look better.
the linked newegg monitor was given 5 stars by several PC users, including at least one HTPC user.
I plan on buying a new HDtv and using it as a monitor with a gaming pc, but whichever model i go with, it will have to be well reviewed for up close viewing, and as being great to hook a PC up to it with.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
"Have you ever tried sitting on a desk in front of a 46" Monitor? I wouldnt be able to work (or game) "
in my specific setting i will be 4 feet from the monitor on my couch. a desk it might be harder, but i know how i'm building my next system, and where i'm using it, my fall back plan if to have a computer desk, in front of the tv stand my hdtv is on, i'll still be 2-3 feet away, which is plenty. my folks just got a 50" tv, so i have a really good idea just how far back i need to sit, i wasn't thinking in the least about working, since I've never been able to handle anything harder than working at a taco bell.
as for where i'm getting the money, and why i have to spend it, don't blame me, blame the way social security is set up, if they had approved me on day 1 i would have had a tiny little back pay check, and i wouldn't have had enough to waste on a $4 grand home entertainment system. but they didn't approve me, and it will still be some time before i'm on disability, but once i get the cash, i only have 6 months to get rid of all but 2 grand of it, although a burial trust is also exempt (a limited one though, no frills by today's standards) anyways, I've already been researching HDTV sets for use with PCs, and just about every set i've seen that actually had a VGA input on the back looked as crystal clear from 2-3 feet away as a real LCD monitor.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Hmmm--very good points. The set in question is a Sony Bravia, 1080p, 40 in. (do not have the model number on hand) set. It's gorgeous for DVD and TV viewing. I mean incredible. I did use the VGA connection, but images looked washed out, and in playing games it had that effect during fast images that monitors with a pure digital connection (DVI) do not have. That's why I figured to go DVI -> HDMI. I'll test it again and let you know so you don't have to make a $2000 mistake :).